skibum5 wrote:
OTOH if I base it off the other dimension, I get some crazy high MP, truly absurd stuff so I don't think this will work out very well or be able to tell us much.

Yeah, and you must use that dimension, since it's a portrait pic. However, it's only absurd if you assume 100% view. I suggest fudging the pixels to get the number really absurd, then dividing by 4 on the assumption he's at 200% view.

skibum5 wrote:
well if he gave them the other way then the 640 goes to 480 though and you get like 23MP

Nope, because although it's a portrait pic, he's viewing it with the camera in landscape orientation.

Jeff Nolten wrote:
Wha'dya mean? I think we can say with absolute certainty that the new camera will have between 15 and 66 MP.

And if a few more of you would count pixels and do the arithmetic, we might push the upper bound to 100 megapixels!

S Dilworth wrote:
Nope, because although it's a portrait pic, he's viewing it with the camera in landscape orientation.

but then why the 1.5 instead of 0.666?

If the image is long side across screen and he gets the box to measure 49 across (box across same as long side of image across) and the dot 6 across then

if you do (49/6) * 640 then you have a long side dimension of the image and then if you square the long side, as I did, well you are now too high since you really needed (long side) * (2/3 of long side) for MP count so just take the long side squared result and mult by 2/3 at the end not by 1.5

When you do (49/6) * 640 (or 720 by my reckoning) you actually get the short side dimension, since the pic is vertical (short side across the width of the screen). I got caught by the same thing at first. Have another glance at Ciprian's image.

I agree this is all hugely speculative. However, all you need to do is assign values to 2 variables to get your own answer assuming we are viewing the image at 100% zoom.

1) What is the resolution of the review screen?
2) what percentage of the total image area is occupied by the small zoom box?

I have assigned variables that I believe are reasonable and arrived at 30MP. You may choose other numbers and arrive at different values. The error on this calculation as has been pointed out is certainly quite high so I'm really not getting too excited by my results

I doubt it will be higher than the 5D2 is. Why would they have the flagship at 18.x and the "lower end" full frame at 30+ MP? I'd probably say it could be the same sensor as the 1Dx, unless Canon is still in MP count race with Sony... but no one here knows...

S Dilworth wrote:
When you do (49/6) * 640 (or 720 by my reckoning) you actually get the short side dimension, since the pic is vertical (short side across the width of the screen). I got caught by the same thing at first. Have another glance at Ciprian's image.

but if it is a portrait mode photo then the white box doesn't look nearly vertical enough even at that angle does it?

ok nevermind after playing around I think I found matching angle that could pull it off, I didn't think it was possible at first since the pixels on 5D2 screen make the box a lot skinnier in portrait mode than landscape mode, although tje body angle to produce that still looks a bit steeper to me than in the photo and for the top info text to be clipped off needs a really steep body angle, maybe the new one can let you use the entire screen to view without the info? and thus the screen view once zoomed in can be more square than 3:2 ratio, anyway we still have a mess then using his numbers:

49/6 * 640 for short side = 5230 but then long side is 49/4 * 480 = 5880 which is only a sensor aspect ratio of 1.12:1

if they changed to a 720x480 3:2 screen then it's a worse 49/6 * 720 = 5880 short side and 5880 long side square sensor

obviously 4958 width makes no sense so next option is 70/6 * 480 = 5600 width but that doesn't allow for a 3:2 even with the smallest height 4906 so actually most of them are out by the 4906 so start with 4906 and it's matching width is 7359 and that gives 36MP of the Nikon

if we decided the height was more like an even more conservative 69/10 estimate for a 4416h then we get 6624 w and still a large 30MP.

hmmm so even using the most MP conservative measurements you end up with a 30MP count....

if we go to a super conservative 67x and 11x we get 3900 x 5847 which is still 23MP

it does hint a bit against 18MP then
the 22MP sensor still fits as a minor outlier
the 30MP easily fits
and the 36MP fits easily too

anyway this may be rubbish, most likely, but if taken without a grain of salt , one is led to say it probably doesnt re-use the 1DX sensor and probably the new 22MP sensor would be near the lower outer bounds of expectation with 30MP and 36MP type sizes more likely by some degree than 22MP

30MP, 6fps, AF at least as good as 7D and hopefully better

anyway these specs keep going around in circles, canon must find this forum a better laugh than anything on screen, if they peek in at all
EosFun at least is probably rolling around the floor daily at us

John Shultz wrote:
I agree this is all hugely speculative. However, all you need to do is assign values to 2 variables to get your own answer assuming we are viewing the image at 100% zoom.

1) What is the resolution of the review screen?
2) what percentage of the total image area is occupied by the small zoom box?

I have assigned variables that I believe are reasonable and arrived at 30MP. You may choose other numbers and arrive at different values. The error on this calculation as has been pointed out is certainly quite high so I'm really not getting too excited by my results

my most likely results actually do seem to match your ballpark now although I can sort of squeeze 22MP in a lower limit so yeah can't get too excited, just enough to have foolish dreams and dashed hopes

Dustin Gent wrote:
I doubt it will be higher than the 5D2 is. Why would they have the flagship at 18.x and the "lower end" full frame at 30+ MP? I'd probably say it could be the same sensor as the 1Dx, unless Canon is still in MP count race with Sony... but no one here knows...

""Sometime in early 2012 we're going to have the full FX body updates from both Canon and Nikon. In the case of the 5DII and D700 follow ups, there will be substantive pixel increases (the rumors put both in the 30's)...

"The thing I was trying to address in my article was what the camera makers--specifically Nikon and Canon--had concluded about pixels versus target customer. My conclusion: they think that the amateur/enthusiast will respond more to pixels, the professional more to low-level pixel integrity. Thus, we'll get more pixels in the lower cost bodies."

Gentlemen, I believe I was onto something by suggesting the spy shot may not show the camera at 100% view playback, although it's probably not 200% either. Let me explain.

My Nikon D300S has a 640-pixel wide display, produces a 4288-pixel wide file, and lets you zoom in during playback to precisely 400% (Nikon calls this "approximately 27x" in the user manual, since (4288/640) * 4 = 26.8, but I find that terminology confusing; 400% means much more to me). The D300S also allows 200%, 100%, 50%, etc.

I looked up the user manual for the EOS 60D, since it's a recent Canon SLR with a 720-pixel wide LCD. Canon uses the same confusing terminology as Nikon, but says the camera can magnify up to 10x in playback. With a photo width of 5184 pixels, that equates to a 139% view; very clearly not 100%.

Since that's not the behaviour I expected, I also looked up the EOS 5D Mark II user manual. Guess what? It also allows a magnification up to 10x. But with a photo width of 5616 pixels and an LCD width of 640 pixels, that now equates to a 114% view.

The EOS-1D Mark IV magnifies up to 10x (equates to 131% view on its display).

The EOS-1D Mark III magnifies up to 10x (equates to 82%, i.e. this camera can never show the full file detail on its rear display).

The EOS-1Ds Mark III magnifies up to 10x (equates to 57% view, i.e. you can't even get close to seeing the full file detail on the display).

In other words, Canon cameras do not typically show 100% view in playback mode. They show 10x magnification instead, and depending on the sensor and LCD, that may be more or less than 100% view.

This means all our previous calculations are wrong, or right only if 10x magnification = 100% view on the "5D Mark III", a very unlikely scenario.